Jay Sengupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction dated 30th March 2005 and sentence dated 31st March 2005 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 05/2004: Sessions SL No. 103/2004, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant no. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing an offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 1 to 4 each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and further convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 2 to 4 each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, all sentences having to run concurrently.
(2.) By an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 12th September 2003, PW 1 filed a complaint before the Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad alleging commission of offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code by the present appellants in respect of her minor daughter Kalpana on 31st March 2003. She alleged that due to severe threats given by the accused, the informant could not come before the Learned Court although the police had taken no action over the alleged offences. Pursuant to the direction passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code, Farakka Police Station Case No. 20/2004 dated 29th February 2004 was started against the present appellants for commission of offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code. The allegations made by the de facto complainant in the said First Information Report were as under:- The accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 lived right next door to the complainant. The daughter of the complainant was aged about 14 years. At 6 p.m. on the day of occurrence the accused no. 1 told the daughter of complainant that his mother had sent for her for some urgent reason. Accordingly, she told her mother that her next door neighbour Minati Halder had sent for her and asked whether she should go. As the complainant consented, she went to Minati's place. The complainant waited for quite a while, but as Kalpana did not return she went to Minati's house. There she found her daughter lying in the room, all but dead and almost naked with her pants and clothes lying around blood-stained. As soon as the complainant entered the room, the accused no. 1 ran away. The complainant asked her daughter about who had done this to her. The victim girl said that Ujjal Halder (of that household) called her there on a false pretext and taking advantage of the vacant house, forcibly raped her. When she said she would tell this to all, he tried to throttle her. Then as the complainant raised a cry, the villagers and the people of the household came there and heard this. The accused no. 3 throttled the victim girl lest she would talk. Then as the people of the complainant's household and the villagers came to see the aftermath, the accused no. 2, 3 and 4 ordered everyone out and shut the door, saying that they would take her to the hospital themselves. After a while, the appellants proceeded with the victim girl in a van towards Beniagram P.H.C. Hospital. She died on the way. After a while, as the aforesaid witnesses went to the hospital the doctor said that the victim girl had died and the accused had taken her to the cremation ground for burning. As the aforesaid witnesses went to Beniagram cremation ground, they found accused no. 2, 4 and some other unknown people burning the victim girl in the cremation ground. As the witnesses created an uproar, the accused threatened that they would settle the issue in the village and if people informed the police, they would kill them. The above incident was intimated to the Farakka Police Station in writing through another person. But the police then took no action.
(3.) Investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer prepared a sketch map and examined witnesses. As the dead body of the victim was forcibly cremated several months ago, no post-mortem examination of the deadbody could be held. After completion of investigation, PW 14, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 21st May 2004 under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code. On 12th August 2004 charges were framed against the appellant no. 1 under Section 376 of the Penal Code and against all the four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as also under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.;